so it remains doubtful how much weight such a judgement carries. Although the protection granted to them, as identified above, coincides with some essential aspects of that provided in favour of PDOs and PGIs, the scope of the latter is formulated in broader terms78, encompassing at least three further different infringement hypotheses.79 Firstly, those attributable to any direct or indirect commercial use of the geographical indication for products that are not the subject of registration, where the latter are “comparable”80 to products registered under that name or where the use of the geographical indication for any product – but also for any service – that “exploits, weakens, dilutes, or is detrimental to the reputation” of the protected name81. This affects situations that are much broader than mere misuse. Secondly, those committed through the use of transcriptions and transliterations as well as that of expressions such as “style”, “type”, “method”, “as produced in”, “imitation”, “flavour”, “like” or of similar meaning, combined with the protected term. Thirdly, those resulting from the presence of any other false or misleading indications (relating to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of the product) used on the wrapping or packaging, in advertising material, in documents or in information provided on online interfaces relating to the product concerned, as well as the use, for packaging, of containers that may be misleading as to its origin. This discrepancy means that protection for TSGs does not apply in cases similar to the three previous hypotheses. 78 F. Gualtieri, S. Vaccari, B. Catizzone, The protection of geographical indications: the notion of evocation, in Riv. Dir. Alim., 2, 2017, p.15. 79 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 26. 80 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cit., recital 34: “to establish whether products are comparable to the products designated by a geographical indication, account should be taken of all relevant factors. Those factors should include whether the products have common objective characteristics, such as method of production, physical appearance or use of the same raw material; under which circumstances the products are utilised from the point of view of the relevant public; whether they are frequently distributed through the same channels; and whether they are subject to similar marketing rules”. 81 EU General Court, judgement of 25 June 2025, case T-239/23, Nero Champagne, ECLI:EU:T:2025:638, point 50: «Unlike Article 103(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1308/2013, which limits its scope to ‘comparable products not complying with the product specification’, Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation does not contain any indication that it applies only to use of the PDO at issue for comparable products or for goods and services not complying with the specification of that PDO (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 9 September 2021, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, C783/19, EU:C:2021:713, paragraph 54). It is apparent from the wording of Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013, which does not refer to ‘comparable products’ or to any other specific category of goods or services, that that provision is intended to apply to all types of goods and services, including comparable products complying with the specification of the PDO in question». Without any significant changes in this regard, the content of article 103 of Regulation No 1308/2013 has now been transferred to art.26 of Regulation (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, which applies to all PDO and PGI quality products, but not to TSGs. 342 ERMENEGILDO MARIO APPIANO
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==